January’s 2008 GOP straw poll
posted at 3:31 am on January 11, 2007 by Ian
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
 |
|
posted at 3:31 am on January 11, 2007 by Ian
|
|
GreenRoom
Hot Links
- Right Channels
- Left Channels
- War on Terror
- Cartoons/Satire
- Audio podcasters
- Entertainment
- Industry/Internet TV
- Hangouts
- Talkers
- Hot Air Affiliates
Feeds
© 2006-2009 Hot Air Network, LLC | Designed by The Blog Studio | Terms of Use
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
I’m the only one who’s first choice was Gov Pataki.
I pwn.
2008 is going to suck. Oh well, maybe 2012 will be better.
Ringmaster on January 11, 2007 at 8:00 AM
Yeah, like people in New York, Washington and any major big city are going to live to 2012. So, keep those borders open! Let’s negotiate with the terrorists! Appeasement cookies for everyone.
If a Democrat gets in office now, were all dead.
NeoConSnakePlissken on January 11, 2007 at 8:50 AM
For sure, I can’t understand why anyone’s first choice…or choice at all…would be Pataki.
My actual first choice isn’t listed…and I’m sure he won’t run…but it’s Fred Thompson.
We really need another Ronald Reagan, but I suppose that mold has been, as they say, broken. This is far too important a time in history for a lack-luster bunch of candidates.
JetBoy on January 11, 2007 at 8:54 AM
If you aren’t sure about the candidates, here is a link to a a test which may help. It also provides a chart which outlines the Candidates’ public positions on the issues of the “Presidential Candidate Selector — 2008 Front Runners”
heroyalwhyness on January 11, 2007 at 8:58 AM
Really? Is this really all we have to choose from?
Jaibones on January 11, 2007 at 9:29 AM
I can’t say I’m too excited about any of the choices at this point. But then again I was hoping that Christopher Walken really was running. So what do I know.
vcferlita on January 11, 2007 at 9:49 AM
Gov Pataki’s electable.
Not only did he get the NYCers like Mayor Guliani, he got the upstate hippies.
The rest of the choices all suck, minus Newt, who’s unelectable.
Ringmaster on January 11, 2007 at 9:55 AM
youroyalwhyness,
nice link; I wonder if any of the position characterizations are correct? If so, I can pretty much drop Mitt right now…
Jaibones on January 11, 2007 at 9:59 AM
How am I supposed to pick BOTH who I find acceptable and who is my first choice if every single one of them is UNACCEPTABLE?
Jose Chupacabra on January 11, 2007 at 10:12 AM
A) That quiz sucks.
B) The chart is wrong on many issues for a lot of candidates.
thirteen28 on January 11, 2007 at 11:10 AM
At this point in history we absolutely MUST have somebody in power with a set balls large enough to deal with a ruthless enemy hell bent on our destruction. All other issues are pointless. Nothing else will matter if our cities are being hit with chemical weapons and school buses full of children are being blown up by suicide bombers.
The voters MUST wake up! If we elect some weak kneed liberal our way of life is over. All other issues aside, I will vote for whomever promises to continue fighting against the global islamic jihad. If they break that promise, we impeach ‘em.
As much as I disagree with Rudy, McCain, Mitt, etc, I will vote for whichever one is the most hawkish on the issue of war against those who wish to destroy our great nation.
I personally believe that Condi is that person. She has been playing “Good Cop” since becoming S.o.S. because that’s her job, however I think in real life she’s the “Bad Cop” she played as N.S.A. in the first term. She may not be as far to the right (as Reagan) on domestic issues as we’s like but she’s be the most hawkish on the only issue that really matters today and will affect us for several generations to come. We need a foriegn policy Reaganite president to lead us through this war. If we lose in ‘08 to a Carterlike demonrat, our grandchildren will pay the price (in the form of the jizya tax).
Are we America? Or are we Spain? We’ll find out in ‘08. God help us if we make the wrong choice.
Tony737 on January 11, 2007 at 11:20 AM
“we’s like but she’s be”
Oh Good GOD! – “we’D like but she’D be” !
Tony737 on January 11, 2007 at 11:24 AM
Romney. {{shudder}}
paranoid on January 11, 2007 at 12:12 PM
I must confess that I do not understand the anti-McCain sentiment. The most important issue is the war, and McCain has been solid from the beginning. I trust him to fight it more than any other candidate.
packsoldier on January 11, 2007 at 12:19 PM
The war is important, but securing our borders is equally important, IMHO. The terrorists are slipping through our porous borders right along with all those undocumented “workers”. It’s only a matter of time before they bring the war back onto our soil, a la 9-11. Also, as a resident of an area that has recently become invaded by masses of those that are just doing the jobs that Americans won’t do, I can tell you that if we don’t curb this influx, soon there won’t be much left in America worth defending.
BeachBaby on January 11, 2007 at 12:55 PM
McCain and his gang of 14 effectively stopped almost every conservative measure coming out of the house. He is a media hog and not to be trusted. He would make a good nominee for the Dems.
Valiant on January 11, 2007 at 12:56 PM
I agree with JetBoy: Fred Thompson for president. With Bruce Willis as his VP. And R. Lee Ermey as SecDef.
That would be the most awesome thing that has ever been awesome before. Seriously, can you imagine what a DoD press briefing would be like with The Gunny from Full Metal Jacket? We’d be reading transcripts as awesome as this:
Damn, Allahpundit’s gonna have to go in and put a content warning on my post… And I mean, “WARNING: AWESOMENESS”
ScottMcC on January 11, 2007 at 2:15 PM
GO NEWT!
One Angry Christian on January 11, 2007 at 2:45 PM
Can you say, “McCain-Feingold Lieberal Protection Act”? Can you say, “Open borders for all”? How about, “No judges that read the Constitution as it was written”? Those are McCain’s babies.
steveegg on January 11, 2007 at 2:50 PM
thirteen28
Kindly specify errors.
The result I received definitely reflected my political choices.
heroyalwhyness on January 11, 2007 at 3:10 PM
Thompson/Tancredo, Tancredo/Thompson, I’m good with either.
It’s the border, ______.
Senator Thompson is doing Paul Harvey’s show again this week. I understand he’s slated to take it over full-time when Paul either croaks or retires. But I’ve heard him say in a radio interview on a San Diego local station that he’s made preliminary inquiries into the possibility of running. If I remember his comments at all, his parameters for choosing to toss his hat in were based on there being no Republican candidate with national sovereignty and constitutional rule of law as first priorities. Given that, he might well show up.
As for McCain, he gets no respect until he understands the 1st, 4th, 10th and 14th Amendments.
Freelancer on January 11, 2007 at 5:31 PM
I hope that we have more and better choices than those listed above when voting time comes around. A lot of those guys have a strong negative when it comes to solidifying the Republican base and undecideds: immigration – McCain, Hagel, Huckabee; social issues – anyone from NY. I did choose 5 as acceptable and I’d be very happy with 4 of those.
This election could be for the soul of the Republican party. Does it differentiate itself from the Democrats? Or do we get the big government, “compassionate conservative” party that won’t fight for anything but the war in Iraq and illegal immigrants while making nice with the other party who accuses them of Naziism?
cmay on January 11, 2007 at 7:21 PM
Well, for one, it has Gingrich as “strongly supports” for tougher immigration policy (which is true), but has Tancredo as merely “supports” … which is insane. If Gingrich “strongly supports” then Tancredo should be listed as “super-duper strongly supports”. Like him or not, you can’t deny that Tancredo has the toughest stance on immigration in the entire field.
It only has Romney as “undecided/middle of the road” on the issue when he is a proponent of stronger border enforcement.
It has Bill Richardson as “strongly supports” on tougher immigration laws, something I have never heard from him.
It has Biden listed as hawkish (”supports” for pre-emptive war).
It has Gingrich as being opposite of the “no time line for withdrawal” position, yet I’ve yet to hear Gingrich ever call for a time line for withdrawing troops from Iraq. It also has Gingrich supporting plans to redeploy troops now.
They are 180 degrees out on Mitt Romney’s position regarding federal funding for stem cell research (he opposes, they list him as supporting).
They’ve got Duncan Hunter as strongly supporting gun control when he has a lifetime A+ rating from the NRA.
I’m sure I can find more if I go on …
thirteen28 on January 11, 2007 at 7:35 PM
Scott, thanks for the laugh! I love the Gunny! I watch him on “Mail Call” any chance I get. Great idea for Gunny as S.o.D.! Or at least White House spokesman.
Tony737 on January 11, 2007 at 10:56 PM
Comment pages: